The past couple of weeks have been heart breaking and jaw dropping all around the world as the news of xenophobic attacks in South Africa proved that black history is dying and the struggles of all African heroes who fought for the liberation and unity of Africa is going down the drain. Xenophobia, which I consider a cousin to racism, is the dislike of citizens from another country or region. However, a lot of people around are looking at this from the point of a physical struggle but which is not the case. Xenophobia is an ideological struggle, which dates back years if not centuries. 

Dating back to the apartheid, South Africans have always lived with the ideology of, "they are not Africans" and that, "being a part of the Great African Continent is just a geographical miss happening". Reading Conversation With

Myself (Pg80) by Nelson Mandela , I stumbled on this very interesting conversation between Mandela and Richard Stengel. During which, Stengel asked a question. It didn't make much sense at first sight, but if the dots were to be connected backwards, they would connect perfectly with the xenophobia attacks. The question went thus and I quote 

"STENGEL: But the story where the chief [Albert Luthuli] asked you why you hadn't consulted him about, about the formation of MK, was that on this trip or was that when you returned from Africa?"

Looking at it from this perspective, I wouldn’t blame the South Africans for their reactions. An ideology is never changed over night. I would blame their leadership system for ignoring to revert this ideology in their nation. 

Notwithstanding, there is a second twist to this story. It is the part where the South Africans carrying out these attacks have proven their low knowledge of African History. If and only if they could take a minute to sit down and look back in time, they wouldn't undermine the heroic role many African leaders and states played towards the liberation of African. We though vary in degree are by no means exclusive. South Africans were accommodated in different nations for safety and given jobs to fend for their families. For many who strike today against their fellow brothers are alive because of those they kill. 

Ideological battles are the biggest plaguing the African continent right now. The only difference is, that in South Africa was given a name. From immigrants being tortured in North Africa to the future leaders of our great continent being killed in attacks in the East, to religious battles in Central Africa to the loss of lives and separation of families in the South, Africa is at war with itself. I weep, not for the present generation but the heroes who sacrificed a lot for the present generation. Again and again I weep, not for the present generation but because the only history we will ever write for ourselves, is the history where we turned our backs against ourselves to shake hands with those who put us in this very situation.

If I were a South African, I would live up to the tittle of "A Rainbow Nation" and be a symbol of peace. If I were a South African, I would never honor all the fallen heroes from Muammar Gaddafi to Robert Mugabe who made a decision to tilt destiny in our favor. But since I am only an African, I continue to weep and wait for the day the Rainbow Nation will truly become the rainbow amidst Africa's rain. Everyone is to be blamed. The system is to be blame for not killing this ideology of segregation, the attackers are to be blamed for ignoring our History and the African media must be blamed for little sensitization.

Continue reading

Change is usually defined as the act of making something different or using a different approach to a specific situation. In the recent years change has probably been used more times in political campaigns than ever before. Its face value gets the votes and its intrinsic value either ruins or develops a society. From the United States of America’s 2008 presidential elections to that of Nigeria in 2015, politicians have implored this word as a reflection of the new era they intend to create. That has left me pondering, what do they actually mean by “CHANGE”. This article is going to look at change from two different perspectives. These two perspectives are two opposite lanes on the highway of foreign policy, a shift from physical captivity to mental and diplomatic anarchy.

The “On Paper” end of human slavery in the United States by the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1^st 1963 was a stepping to something bigger. Something that the targeted slaves would go through years of study and volumes of books and actually still sign. It was the beginning of foreign policy. A set of laws and limitations that promote change but yet still give change.  Its very first child has taken away millions of lives and promoted spending while millions die each day of hunger and lack of shelter. A child so expensive to educate and each day that passes, something has to be ameliorated to make it better. No doubt it was named DEMO-CRACY. Really wander and ponder when this whole “DEMO” will be over the full version released. Democracy was given to third world countries as a condition to restore what actually belongs to us. At a time when very few people in those parts of the world knew what it was and its promoters understood it inside out. We went into a deal which enhanced CHANGE but then left CHANGE.

The other elements of foreign policy sound more like its grand children. From the IMF and The World Bank to the United Nations and the International Court of Justice are all good concepts with two main objectives, to promote CHANGE and leave behind some CHANGE. Ever wondered why all Heroes (leaders of 3^rd world countries who took the bull by the horn) began perishing for unjustified causes? The answer is simple. They began to see the light at the end of the tunnel. They understood what the whole system was meant to do. From Libya to Burkina Faso, Iraq to Syria, the system has been tailored to creating CHANGE and leaving some CHANGE.

Wonder where all this is leading to, well let me break it down for you. The two perspectives of change here are those of the powerful nations and the developing nations. The former has a very high face value but the latter has an invalid intrinsic value and a result of that of the former. The wars and ousting of leaders in developing countries creates a vacuum for exploitation by the west. This exploitation, often done in billions of dollars boosts the western economy and oil the wheels of positive growth and technological advancements in those countries. Meanwhile somewhere in the 3^rd world country, Change (the left overs from the exploitation process) is being used to promote a system created by the same people who exploit these countries thereby creating another vacuum for investment with funds gotten from exploitation. The next leaders come and promise Change. The borrow investment funds from the same people whole exploited us. And then, at that point, just that point when the 3^rd world countries are about to make it out of the rat race, we bay back the loans and all they are left with is CHANGE.

ARE THRIRD WORLD COUNTRIES EVER GOING TO EXPERIENCE CHANGE OR ARE WE GOING TO CONTINUE LEAVING ON CHANGE????

Continue reading

Continue reading